Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
The City plans to overhaul the 40 acres between Mission and Folsom streets, and between Main and Second streets, where new buildings will be filled with businesses and 3,400 new homes around a 1,200-foot office tower. The tower will be linked to a new bus terminal building, which might include rail stations for BART, Caltrain and high-speed rail customers when it opens in 2014.
The City’s redevelopment commission is due today to consider plans for a temporary transit terminal that will serve customers of Muni, Golden Gate Transit, Greyhound, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District and Western Contra Costa Transit Authority buses when the existing Transbay Terminal is torn down.
Paul Paridis — vice president of construction giant Hines, which will build the new office tower and terminal building — said the existing terminal might come down in 2009, although he warned that target date is “very optimistic.”
The 3.5-acre temporary terminal between Folsom and Howard streets, and between Beale and Main streets, will include a ring of bus stops surrounding an island of more bus stops, according to the plans, with a single-story Greyhound Bus Lines building planned off Folsom Street.
“This is yet another step,” Transbay Joint Powers Authority Executive Director Maria Ayerdi said, “that moves us forward to the building of the new station and opening day of 2014.”
Ayerdi said the joint agency will own the Greyhound building and all of the temporary terminal’s fixtures, including street lights, trees, benches, bike racks and canopy-style bus shelters, and that they will be handed over to The City’s redevelopment agency once the new terminal opens for business.
The temporary terminal was designed to be pedestrian-friendly, according to Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Fred Blackwell. “It will not be extremely disruptive in terms of the overall neighborhood,” he said.
But some state-owned public parking spots at the site will be lost to the project. “It will cease to be used for parking,” redevelopment agency spokesman Benjamin Ibarra said, “but that’s part of the overall plan.” Ibarra said two small commercial buildings currently on the lot would be torn down.
GREYHOUND
» Greyhound bus passengers who are dropped off from a driveway off Folsom Street will enter a Greyhound building attached to eight outdoor bus terminals.
AC TRANSIT
» A security and customer service building, which will anchor an island in the middle of the temporary terminal, will be surrounded by AC Transit bus stops. The island will be separated by two bus lanes from an outer ring of AC Transit bus stops and a WestCat bus stop.
MUNI
» Muni 108 Treasure Island Line passengers will be picked up and dropped off at the corner of Beale and Howard streets. Muni riders on the 38-Geary line, and on the 71-Haight line, will be picked up on Main Street and dropped off on Beale Street.
SAMTRANS AND GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT
» SamTrans and Golden Gate Transit bus stops will be on Main Street opposite the temporary terminal.



Comments from Examiner Readers
11:46 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 9, 2008 re: "Pitch reaches for sky to help build terminal"
Report as inappropriate
12:06 PM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008
re: "Pitch reaches for sky to help build terminal"
Report as inappropriate
10:55 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008
re: "Pitch reaches for sky to help build terminal"
Report as inappropriate
1:28 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 21, 2007
re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
8:56 PM MST on Sun., Jul. 15, 2007
re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
10:02 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
9:02 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
6:40 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
4:17 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
2:08 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood envisioned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
11:56 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood envisioned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
10:50 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood envisioned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
8:47 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood envisioned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Despite how well the building may or may not be designed, one thing to consider is evacuation procedures. How are you going to quickly and efficiently evacuate everybody from a 1000ft plus building? It simply cannot be done...and for those living in earthquake prone San Francisco (and in an area prone to liquefaction nonetheless) quick evacuation is even more critical. Design engineers may say they can plan for every possible situation, but can we trust them? No, they are working for private industry, and they will simply tell city officials what they want to hear: that no matter what happens, everything will be all right. And the mis-informed city officials will agree. No, these towers are not right for San Francisco...I believe they should be no taller than 750 ft.
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Chris said:
The Central Tower in downtown San Francisco was 315 feet when constructed (a renovation in the 1930's removed a decorative dome lowering the height 15 feet) in 1898 and it survived 1906 earthquake; it only suffered damage from the fire which followed the earthquake. The 853-foot tall TransAmerica building built in 1972, along with dozens of other highrise buildings, survived Loma Prieta in 1989 with no damage. The height of a building does NOT determine whether it will be damaged in an earthquake; rather, the method of construction and the type of soil/bedrock which it is constructed on determine whether a building will survive an earthquake. Many people in San Francisco have died in one or two-story buildings during an earthquake. As for terrorist attacks, terrorists can easily set off a bomb at the Farmer's Market on the Embarcadero and kill hundreds--there is no requirement to have a tall building to be a target for terrorists. Some posters are using emotion, not logic.
4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
These flights of fancy development projects pop up when the Bay Area is without a major quake to keep politicians and developers in check. After the 1989 Loma Prieta Quake, high-rise construction in the Financial District and SOMA fell off considerably for the obvious reason(s)-- can you say landfill and liquifaction?
2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Great idea. A 100O ft. breakable glass tower, above a regional transit center, which can collapse on itself should there be a terrorist attack or major earthquake? Did same people approve this structure which approved Rincon Towers at the approach to Bay Bridge? When the "perfect storm" arises, and history proves it will, much of the transit in the Bay Area stands to be paralyzed in an emergency. I call that clean, clear thinking.
122 agree | 137 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
To have decent public services such as Muni, police, parks, street repair, health care and social programs, a city needs to have a large number of taxpayers. Low density cities cannot afford public services on the scale needed in SF. By adding a concentration of high density buildings south of Market, SF will gain a tax base that can help pay for the many services needed throughout the city. The envisioned design will not only increase the roll of taxpayers, but will do so in an area that has been under-utilized and run down. I see this as an opportunity to reinvigorate a stagnant part of the city while providing a new face to the Transbay terminal. A transit-centric residential area will empower people to live, work, and play in their own neighborhood without needing to drive. What's not to like about that?
170 agree | 145 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Otto Rite said:
The photograph shows the proposed San Francisco skyline as seen from Treasure Island. Looking toward downtown from upper Market Street in The City shows that even the first 50-story building that is now under construction in the area, 1 Rincon Hill blocks the existing view of the Bay Bridge. If more of these huge, hideous high-rises are built many San Franciscans will no longer be able to see portions of the Bayand the bridge and the East Bay hills, nor even, on certain days the sunrise! Grab your ankles people, here come the skycrapers! There USED to BE HEIGHT LIMITS, and for good reason. The planners and developers are out for one thing and one thing only: MONEY! Notice how it is implied in this article that the "new" downtown/financial district is going to be South of Market, while I suppose, the existing one is abandoned the way city dwellers left for the suburbs decades ago.
167 agree | 182 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I used to work close to the bus terminal and was surprised to find recent housing development almost intersecting with the Bay Bridge onramps leading towards Oakland. When the developers plan for the new Transbay terminal, will they take into account the new Bay Bridge construction and the landfill problems surrounding the areas where the new developments are being built? I like the idea of expansion, but what about taking a closer look at the solid earth beneath our feet, so to speak?
166 agree | 146 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
City resident said:
This is where we need to be heading. The region needs to channel its growth into core areas like this, building on mass transit. Want to do something about climate change? Also the downtown skyline has become a dull blob, and more development in the area can help pay for public benefits and infrastructure, like the train extension and open space. Want high speed rail to happen? We need to set the stage and give it someplace worthy to come.
162 agree | 170 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Bob said:
I work one block from where this Hub is going to be built. This area is already congested, what will it be like when this Hub is built. There is no space, so where is the main building going to be built, underground? There are buildings going up on all sides of the Terminal now setting there. I think people better slow down, SF is moving too fast. Remember this is SF, a big town, not NYC a big city.
172 agree | 164 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I went to one of the new Transby Terminal and Rincon Hill meetings regarding the transition, and the designs are great. There will be even park space as well.
164 agree | 168 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
An ex-employee for a sub-consultant on a bid team said:
Let your happy or angry feelings/comments/suggestions be heard. Be informed and go attend the workshops. We need to build consensus and make intelligent decisions for a project of this magnitude for ourselves but most importantly, the future generations.
161 agree | 187 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Happy Rincon Hill Resident said:
I'm excited to see those ugly bus ramps and the urine soaked Transbay Terminal demolished and a new Transbay Transit Center arise with community meeting rooms and other appealing amenities (along with the infrastructure for Caltrain and the dreamy high speed train). I understand the City wanting to go for 1200' height limits to increase the City's annual revenues. I do hope they leave the plan for the park/green space on Howard Street between Main and Beale in the plan - we MUST have some park space if we're to become a neighborhood; we MUST have a park for recreation and neighborhood (the Rincon Hill/Transbay) events. I look forward to watching this area rise from being the freeway onramp and trash can of the rest of the City to move the homeless into being a fabulous destination for future residents and FiDi workers.
163 agree | 160 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Angry Local Resident said:
This overpriced boondoggle represents the largest city landgrab in history. The next decade of local pol campaign contributions will be paid for by corps angling for a slice of the "redevelopment" projects. Last I checked the 2nd street historic corridore, due to be eminent domained by the city for this, was packed with new historic lofts, high tech startups and great restaurants. Why does the city need to take all this property for redevelopment?
178 agree | 188 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree